I don't disagree. However, that's not really very good reasoning to totally remove it. You need to weigh the pros and cons. Something which I'm saying hasn't been demonstrated. Vaul has done it, but then his strongest reason for removing is weakened by the fact you're arguing it affects games too much.
The problem is it doesn't, until it does, and when it does it really does. That shouldn't be too hard of a problem to grasp.
I grasp the problem. I even agree it's a problem. I know it's a long ass post above but Id like to think I wrote some useful stuff in there somewhere about maybe tweaking retreat to be less problematic. You're just not looking at this holistically enough. You're being too simplistic. This rule causes a problem, therefore remove rule. Just isn't very robust. Why does the rule exist? What is the design goal? Is that a valuable goal? How does the rule achieve that goal? What other problems does it cause? This is the basic rubric for logical and critical thinking. By demonstrating and understanding. People can see if they're looking at it the same way and that leads to discussion. Vaul and I agree with the 'idea' of what retreat tries to achieve. So even if we disagree on whether it achieves it, we can still move on to constructive discussion about how it might achieve it better.
The difference is that I disagree with the "idea" of what Retreat's trying to achieve (i.e. a clumsy rubberbanding mechanic).
That still sounds like a post-emotional response to an event you didn't like. You've only gone so far as to try justify why you don't like it. Which is fine. But it doesn't convert very well into constructive feedback.
No, it doesn't. You're just trying to imply that I've lost a game because of it and I'm whining, and doing your general arguing in bad faith schtick. The last time this came up, it was me stealing a game with Retreat. And it was absolute bullshit. No, I've justified why it's bad for the game. That converts very well into constructive feedback - remove it.
Ok so in retreat, absolute best case a player has 3 orders to use on 1 model. Most cases is going to be 1 or 2. Not only that but less than 75 points in models. How many situations does that translate into 'stealing' the game? Id argue you need to work pretty hard to say a player who can't stop 1 model, spending 2 orders which results in winning the game was doing well or playing the objective particularly well. But I'm open to hearing a robust logic on this.
What? It could easily be 5 (4 command tokens + irregular). In missions with button pushing or ones where you need to get a specialist in contact with the objective that can completely swing things.
You have to cancel retreat on the model you want to use. Unless you happen to have MA or courage on the specialist
The times I have seen retreat stealing games involved the end the game part of the rule. This is also the part everyone always screws up about the rule. Honestly that little list that starts the game In retreat to almost auto win some missions is more then enough to call for a massive overhaul or even the removal of retreat.
Or you could you know, clean up the list writing rule so bringing obscure lists whose sole intention is to exploit a rules loop hole isn't allowed? Again we're going back to differentiating points which are reactions to problems and criticism which has holistically considered a rule and concluded it needs to change.
Yes... you can do that a few ways You can make it so you can't bring such a list by the rules, then you still need to address the misuse and misunderstanding of this rule. You could address both with a very simple fix. Kill the darling. On another note. If I had to guess why the rule even existed I would say it's probably a mercy mechanism designed to end the suffering, that just so happened to have a interesting exploit. I highly doubt it was made as a rubberband mechanism, those things don't really exist anyway
There's a lot of specialists with courage. Plus, you'd only need to cancel retreat on the one model, then you could spend your other three command tokens for orders to get 4.
Sorry I guess I should clarify. Assuming Rubber band is referring to catch up mechanics. "To paraphrase James Ernest, catch up mechanics don’t actually exist – if the player who is behind gets an advantage, they might not actually be behind. In other words, there may always be a leader in a game, it just may not be the player who looks like they’re in the lead on first glance. Thus, catch up mechanics are just “mechanics” that obscure who the leader is."
Oh so now we have a totally new and contradictory reason why the rule should go - it's misused and misunderstood? I think it helps to think about what the rule does, then think about what is trying to achieve. Just saying it needs to go because of issues that are only tangentially related seems like the saying : throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Contradictory? I was thinking additive myself. I am. What the rule does is get ignored. Frostbite was one of my favorite missions and I honestly could not tell you if that mission even had the retreat rule. The rare moments I have seen it happen in person has been someone misunderstanding it and cheating out a win. I am sure the occasional person remembers/forgets to leave a baggage bot alive so they can farm more points... one day I might even see that myself lol. Yah that's not the baby, that's something floating in the bathwater that maybe the baby should never have been playing with lol
It depends on what the intent behind the rule is. Catch up mechanics can definitely exist, because sometimes the designer says that's what was intended.
They don't need to start up the field in a Camo state. They just need to be in a position to move-move move-move followed by a cautious move to take an objective, which is what happened here.
